beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.08.24 2017구합1872

부당해고구제재심판정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Reasons

The details and details of the decision of reexamination and the decision of reexamination are organizations that manage the apartment of this case by employing eight full-time workers on behalf of the occupants residing in B apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”).

On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor and served as the instant apartment security guard.

On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted a contract of employment with the Intervenor and the Plaintiff “from June 9, 2014 to June 8, 2015,” respectively.

On May 4, 2016, an intervenor notified the Plaintiff of a document stating that “The intervenor shall terminate the labor contract with the Plaintiff on June 9, 2014 to June 8, 2015, as the term of the labor contract expires by concluding the labor contract with the Plaintiff for one year from June 9, 2014 to June 8, 2015, but is automatically extended one year thereafter, and is advanced on June 8, 2016.” Therefore, the intervenor notified the Plaintiff of a written statement stating that “the intervenor intends to terminate the labor contract with the Plaintiff on June

(2) On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the notice of termination of the labor contract constituted unfair dismissal.

On November 2, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed an application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is a fixed-term employee, and the Plaintiff does not have the right to renew.”

On November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission for the revocation of the determination of the said Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on February 14, 2017.

(2) Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-term Act”) provide that the term of employment contract, etc. shall be written when entering into an employment contract.

When an intervenor employs a plaintiff for the first time on June 9, 2014, the term of a labor contract shall be one year.